PDA

View Full Version : Wiki: STR wiki


longhair75
10th July 2007, 01:55 PM
Good afternoon friends,

As we work out these rules Wiki style, maybe we should refrain from changing something someone else posted. I would suggest adding your proposed changes under the passage you would like changed, then discussion could follow. I plan to initial my posts so you know who posted it. Many discussion threads related to the rules are ongoing in the STR forum and, in addition, this wiki also has it's own comment section that can be used as well.{lh75}

Scripture, Tradition, Reason - Anglican/Old Catholic

Congregational Forum Standards

“Scripture, Tradition, Reason - Anglican/Old Catholic” is a congregational forum governed by the broader rules of Christian Forums. Please make sure you are familiar with the latest statement of those rules before you post in this forum. {Wigglesworth, plagiarist}

All those who consider themselves Anglican or who bare the Anglican icon for the purposes of their Christian Forums membership are welcome to fully participate in the life and work of this forum community, including participating in debates. All others are welcome for fellowship, questions and inquiries, non-debate discussion, and finally, at the discretion of the moderating team, limited congenial debate.

All those who consider themselves to be Old Catholic, including, but not limited to, those who bear the Utrecht icon, shall enjoy the same privileges as Anglicans in this subforum. Old Catholics are members of a church with bishops who trace their episcopal heritage to the Old Catholic See of Utrecht. {Wigglesworth}

Members and Non-Members

This is the congregational forum for members of Christian Forums who self-identify as "Anglican" or "Old Catholic." "Self-identify" means what you would call yourself, today, if someone asked for your denomination, and is a clear affirmation. If your normal answer is, "I consider myself XXX ... but I was confirmed in an Anglican church ..." or "I still go to an Old Catholic church but I've decided they're wrong and am converting to XXX..." - or if you never were Anglican or Old Catholic - then please limit yourself to questions and fellowship posts to avoid debating on any issue that may be controversial to Anglicans or Old Catholics.

It is the responsibility of any non-member posting in this forum to avoid contentious topics.

Diversity of Belief

The Anglican and Old Catholic churches include many different provinces and communions worldwide who express a range of perspectives on different doctrines. Despite this breadth of thought within our Churches, it is possible for them to coexist.

It is the expectation on this board that the divers groups will co-exist, and do so courteously, or at least with restraint from discourtesy.

What Anglicans Believe

Anglicans don't have dogma. Anglican doctrine is inferred from praxis. The norm for Anglican praxis is the Book of Common Prayer, or an alternative, as authorized for your Province or communion.

Anglicanism is generally tolerant of variant forms of worship. However, variants should not be promoted as being core Anglican norms. "Accepted by some Anglicans" is a true statement that should be used instead of "is the Anglican viewpoint" for matters not supported by the majority of authorized Prayer Books.
Evidence supporting a claim that some belief or practice is fundamentally Anglican should come from a Prayer book or alternative authorized by an Anglican Province or communion.

Approved Prayer Books include the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and also the 1928 or 1979, CW, BAS, A Prayer Book for Australia, and AAPB (and for historical discussion, ASB, 1552, 1549 and other superceded prayer books). At the same time, while one can have some certainty that the prayer book used in their province and communion represents a degree of mainstream practice for that province and communion, your prayer book is not definitive for other provinces and is not a hammer with which to beat on one another.

Notwithstanding the reliance on the Book of Common Prayer for norms, it is worth repeating that Anglicanism is generally tolerant of variant forms of worship. A judgement that something is "Not predominantly accepted by Anglicans" should never be used to support a claim, or read as a claim, that someone or something is "unAnglican". Anglicanism includes freedom to practice pieties and hold beliefs that are not completely shared (or even commonly shared) within the rest of the communion. Recognize that this is a freedom, not a burden to place upon others. Our freedom to embrace variant practices implicitly depends on others having the freedom to choose to eschew those practices with equal passion. It's not just a matter of "if you don't like it, don't do it". One person may have as valid a reason to discourage some pet piety as another has to promote it.

To summarize, core mainstream Anglican praxis is found in Anglican prayer books; Anglicans don't have dogma, so, Anglican "official positions" must be inferred from Anglican prayer books; a norm for one group should not be misrepresented as "the Anglican viewpoint;" and, something can be "Not usual for Anglicans" without being "unAnglican".

Finally, while ideas and ideals do not need to be hidden, the discussion of them does need to be curbed. Giving free reign to any form of sarcastic wit, vilification, florid overstatement, perjoration, condemnatory oration, arrogant absolutism - in short, flaming and baiting - is inappropriate. You can present your idea. You cannot beat people over the head with it or back them up against a wall with it.

You needn't restrict what you have to say, but you must restrain HOW you say it. {Wigglesworth, plagiarist}

"29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Matt 12:29-31, kjv) seems like a good place to start the rules {lh75}


The following are the newly adopted Christian Forum rules:

1. You Shall Respect Our Beliefs in the Lord Our God

Why do we have this rule? We have this rule because in order for Christians to be united, it is important that we not offend our brethren.

1.1 Don't Abuse the Name of God

The names and titles of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit (in any language) shall not be used as expletives or interjections.

It does not mean that God cannot be criticized nor that negative impressions about Him cannot be shared as part of a discussion or debate. It also does not include in a debate denying the existence of God, the divinity of Christ or the existence of the Trinity as many Christians understand it.

1.2 No Actively Promoting Other Religions or Faiths for the Purpose of Gaining Converts

Outside of the Congregational fora, members may not promote a religion, belief, faith or doctrine other than Christianity. Posts providing information about other religions or faiths are allowed.

It does not mean that one may not debate the rightness or wrongness of specific viewpoints, including those of other religions. Winning of such a debate is not to be considered promotion.

2. Respect everyone and love your neighbour as yourself

Why do we have this rule? We have this rule because in order for Christians to be united, it is important that we treat our brethren with respect. Hurtful behaviors and words are wrong and reflect poorly on the gospel message that every Christian should convey.

2.1 No Flaming

Members should not insult another member with a personal attack. Such behavior would include personally defamatory comments or inflammatory accusations, even if they are believed to be true. Categorically stating that somebody is destined for hell is also considered to be flaming.

This does not mean that criticizing another person's beliefs is the same as flaming. For instance, saying an idea is non-bliblical is not the same as saying that a member is non-Christian or follows non-biblical beliefs.

As a general rule, when in doubt, assume good faith on the part of the other poster.

2.2 No Harassment of Other Members

A member should not go out of their way to make another member's CF experience miserable.

2.3 Congregational Areas Will Have Their Own Rules for Debating

The members of the Congregational fora will be empowered to elect their own moderators and establish their own rules for who may debate in them. In essence, they will remain safe-havens for members of the Congregation.

This does not mean that Congregational fora are allowed to make rules that conflict with the CF rules.

2.4 No Defamation of Other Members

You shall not make posts about other members that are not true. This includes slander of another member or misrepresentations about another person's faith. If a post is found or shown to be untrue, it should be retracted with apology.

2.5 No Violating Copyright Laws

You will not make posts that violate the copyrights of others. In general, this means that any quoted portion of any work must not exceed 20% of the total work. In the specific case of materials owned by the Associated Press, members shall not quote more than one sentence of the work and provide a link to the work.

3. Administrative Matters

Why do we have this rule? Certain rules are needed so that the forum can be run in a smooth manner.

3.1 No Spamming

Defined as promoting personal commercial ventures.

3.2 No Obscene, Vulgar, Racist, Sexually Explicit, or Illegal Posts and Links

3.3 Age and Gender Limiations on Certain Fora

Certain fora have an age or gender requirement. Please respect these requirements, or your post may be deleted.

3.4 No In-Thread Discussion of Moderator Actions

You should not discuss actions taken by moderators in the same thread where the action was taken

This does not mean that you cannot discuss actions taken by moderators in the appropriate fora (for instance the report threads).

3.5 No Bypassing Suspension or Ban

You shall not bypass a suspension or a ban by creating a new account. The appropriate method for dealing with these is to contact the Ombudsman at ombudsman@christianforums.org.

3.6 Special Rules for the Chat Box and IRC Rules

The chatbox is for light chat only. If a topic moves beyond it, it should be moved to the appropriate forum.

3.7 Do not discuss the contents of Google text ads in the open fora

This is a requirement of Christian Forums' contract with Google.

4. My CF Homepage/Profiles

All rules apply to all areas of the site including profiles. Portions of the profile which are automatically generated in posts are held to the same standard as posts. This affects usernames, custom usertitles, avatars, signatures, and mouseovers. Standards for the portions of the profile that can only be seen when viewing the profile will be held to a more relaxed standard. However, if these profile elements are judged by members and staff to be violations of the rules, the member will be expected to edit it within 48 hours of the request.

{added to Wiki 07.11.07 by lh75}

longhair75
10th July 2007, 02:39 PM
Good afternoon friends,

As we work out these rules Wiki style, maybe we should refrain from changing something someone else posted. I would suggest adding your proposed changes under the passage you woyuld like changed, then discussion could follow.

Wigglesworth
10th July 2007, 03:48 PM
I posted this addition:

All those who consider themselves to be Old Catholic, including, but not limited to, those who bear the Utrecht icon, shall enjoy the same privileges as Anglicans in this subforum. Old Catholics are members of a church with bishops who trace their episcopal heritage to the Old Catholic See of Utrecht. {Wigglesworth}

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

PaladinValer
10th July 2007, 03:51 PM
Most of my proposals can be found in other threads, but here is a major one that I'm sure everyone can agree upon:

Since everyone is allowed only one vote in terms of rules and electing moderators, it is absolutely prohibited for sockpuppets to be allowed to vote. Violations will NOT be tolerated, the vote shall be nullified, and action WILL be considered against the violator.

JasonV
10th July 2007, 04:26 PM
How about a comma?

"All churches which are members of a church with bishops who trace their episcopal heritage to the Old Catholic See of Utrecht, or who consider themselves in union with their general principles are to be considered Old Catholic for the purposes of this forum.

Wigglesworth
10th July 2007, 04:34 PM
Kindly refrain from changing another member's text while leaving the original member's name attached to it.

In these early stages, it would be best to follow Longhair's advice to put suggested corrections UNDER the original text until they are discussed. It makes things easier to analyze.

Peace.

Wigglesworth
10th July 2007, 04:36 PM
How about a comma?

"All churches which are members of a church with bishops who trace their episcopal heritage to the Old Catholic See of Utrecht, or who consider themselves in union with their general principles are to be considered Old Catholic for the purposes of this forum.

I don't really understand this or know what it would add.

Peace.

JasonV
10th July 2007, 04:37 PM
I've not changed anything bro. That's why I'm asking you to do it here in the discussion thread. Adding a comma is good punctuation.

Wigglesworth
10th July 2007, 04:46 PM
I've not changed anything bro. That's why I'm asking you to do it here in the discussion thread. Adding a comma is good punctuation.

The wiki was changed consistent with your post above, then I changed the text back to what I wrote originally. You stated, "All churches which are members of a church . . ." However, I originally stated "Old Catholics are members of a church . . . "

Perhaps someone else took your suggestion and changed the wiki text without noting his/her changes. Please accept my apology if I made a false presumption.

Wait a minute . . . I just noticed you did not address me directly, so you must be addressing the same vandal my post was addressing in which I did not name anyone. My mistake. :sorry: Jason, your name does not appear on the "contributors" list in the wiki, so it is apparent someone else posted your suggested text within mine.

Peace.

Fish and Bread
10th July 2007, 04:58 PM
Alright, I suppose I am the "vandal". :) I didn't mean it is as vandalism, just a slight clarification to what I thought was a great addition by Wigglesworth, that I didn't have a chance to clarify in the thread right away because I received a phone call. My reasoning for the change was mainly so that it was phrased to address and pertain solely to the forum and it's rules rather than making a general statement. As originally phrased it is accurate in my view, but in some senses a theological/organization statement with which someone could conceivably take issue (i.e. some Old Catholics might feel they must be in communion with their original see and some might not). As originally revised by me, it would have become simply an elaboration on the rules with no theological or doctrinal implication as to who one might or might not consider "Old Catholic" in real life. I didn't want the rules to become an opinion thing.

In light of that explanation, would it be alright to go back to my revision or something similar?

Wigglesworth
10th July 2007, 05:07 PM
In light of that explanation, would it be alright to go back to my revision or something similar?

I think I understand you. However, I don't think it would clarify anything. Here's why: I am a member of the PNCC, which is not in communion with the Utrecht Union. Actually, nobody in the United States is in communion with the UU. So, I consider "trace their episcopal heritage to the Old Catholic See of Utrecht" to be the most liberal construction of "episcopal heritage" possible. It doesn't mean communion with the present Archbishop of Utrecht. It just means that it includes a church with bishops consecrated in the Utrecht line of succession.

I think my definintion includes the whole spectrum of Old Catholics from conservative to liberal, including FatherRick, JasonV, Rev.Smith, PadreEgan, myself, and anybody else I am forgeting at the moment.

At any rate, the issue is open to discussion, and others can contemplate it and come up with better ideas. This is a building with only a few blocks on the foundation so far.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

karen freeinchristman
10th July 2007, 05:46 PM
so far just a spelling mistake: where it says 'bare' the Anglican icon. It should be 'bear'.

I think you guys are doing a fantastic job so far. I'm afraid I can't be of much help at the moment.

JasonV
11th July 2007, 01:51 AM
Wigglesworth,

I just discovered that Lambeth 1920, resolution 27, does not recognize any Old Catholic denomination which holds Bishop Arnold Harris Matthew in it's Apostolic Succession.

I know the PNCC has +Vilatte in it's succession, but what about +Matthew? What about other Old Catholics here?

EvAng
11th July 2007, 06:58 AM
I added:


Conduct
The main STR forum is for fellowship between Anglicans of various traditions including debate.

Whilst we welcome non-Anglicans to STR we request that if you have a question you ask it in the subforum provided for that purpose ("Ask an Anglican") and if you wish to debate with Anglicans then please confine it to the subforum created for that purpose ("Debate with an Anglican"). {EvAng}

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 10:38 AM
And I deleted it. That's your own personal idea that has NOT been voted upon. People are still divided on the issue, and it should be up to popular vote, not one-man upmanship. Furthermore, I never said anyone support it in the forums.

I didn't enter my lengthy suggestion yet even though it has received support in the forums because such rules should be voted upon.

EvAng
11th July 2007, 12:06 PM
And I deleted it. That's your own personal idea that has NOT been voted upon.

Nor has Fish and Bread's

[Potential addition of: "We also welcome as full members of this forum any Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox who for whatever reason might decide to join us here, recognizing that our common liturgical heritage, traditions, artwork and iconography, three-fold ministries, and claims to Apostolic Succession provide for a unique bond between those groups and the other churches compromising STR." -FB]


Yet that remains...I wonder why?

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 12:26 PM
Perhaps because I didn't see it?

Not to mention it does say "potential," whereas your's didn't have that qualifier. So, it isn't the same situation.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 12:29 PM
F+B came up with this POTENTIAL addition:

[Potential addition of: "We also welcome as full members of this forum any Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox who for whatever reason might decide to join us here, recognizing that our common liturgical heritage, traditions, artwork and iconography, three-fold ministries, and claims to Apostolic Succession provide for a unique bond between those groups and the other churches compromising STR." -FB]

I do not believe it to be a good idea. STR should be principly Anglican/Old Catholic. The suggestion rips away any Anglican/Old Catholic identity.

EvAng
11th July 2007, 12:34 PM
For that matter none of the current wording has been voted upon! Yours was a blatant attempt to gag the view of an evangelical Anglican because you are predisposed against their theology. Shameful!

Wigglesworth
11th July 2007, 01:11 PM
Hold the phone.

I thought anybody could add to the wiki, but that it would not be adopted as an official rule for the forum until the forum voted on it favorably. My impression was that everybody would be adding proposals to the wiki, then the wiki, in part or in total, could be voted upon in a poll thread on STR.

If members sign their changes to the wiki (for example {Wigglesworth} or {lh75}), then I don't think anybody should be precluded from entering text in the wiki. Let's not have a deleting contest to see who can remove and vandalize each other's entries faster.

Just add your text in a separate paragraph and sign your text. Then, everybody can read it and discuss it.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

Fish and Bread
11th July 2007, 01:12 PM
We haven't been given much formal guidance on under what circumstances one is supposed to edit or not edit the wiki. Thus, some people think in a way we're supposed to determine the rules first and edit them on as a group at the end of the process, maybe making slight revisions thereafter to "clean it up". While, at the same time, others feel it should be edited and reedited constantly to see if we can come to a better consensus somehow that way. Who is right? It's hard to say, because there are no rules that I can figure. People are claiming that there are rules governing this process, but so far I've never see anyone provide them. So, in a sense, nothing is improper, though some things might be counterproductive.

EvAng
11th July 2007, 01:17 PM
Hold the phone.

I thought anybody could add to the wiki, but that it would not be adopted as an official rule for the forum until the forum voted on it favorably. My impression was that everybody would be adding proposals to the wiki, then the wiki, in part or in total, could be voted upon in a poll thread on STR.

If members sign their changes to the wiki (for example {Wigglesworth} or {lh75}), then I don't think anybody should be precluded from entering text in the wiki. Let's not have a deleting contest to see who can remove and vandalize each other's entries faster.

Just add your text in a separate paragraph and sign your text. Then, everybody can read it and discuss it.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

My understanding also mate.

We haven't been given much formal guidance on under what circumstances one is supposed to edit or not edit the wiki. Thus, some people think in a way we're supposed to determine the rules first and edit them on as a group at the end of the process, maybe making slight revisions thereafter to "clean it up". While, at the same time, others feel it should be edited and reedited constantly to see if we can come to a better consensus somehow that way. Who is right? It's hard to say, because there are no rules that I can figure. People are claiming that there are rules governing this process, but so far I've never see anyone provide them. So, in a sense, nothing is improper, though some things might be counterproductive.

:amen:

Wigglesworth
11th July 2007, 01:21 PM
The top of the wiki contains some guidance from it's creator.

As we work out these rules Wiki style, maybe we should refrain from changing something someone else posted. I would suggest adding your proposed changes under the passage you would like changed, then discussion could follow. I plan to initial my posts so you know who posted it. Many discussion threads related to the rules are ongoing in the STR forum and, in addition, this wiki also has it's own comment section that can be used as well.

PaladinValer
11th July 2007, 01:28 PM
For that matter none of the current wording has been voted upon! Yours was a blatant attempt to gag the view of an evangelical Anglican because you are predisposed against their theology. Shameful!

Excuse me?

Have I edited the wiki with my suggestions? No. Did you? Yes!

And am I actually trying to gag Evangelical Anglicanism? No, I'm not. What I am predisposed against is the creation of the liberal subforum, the Evangelical subforum, the Anglo-Catholic subforum, the Middle-of-the-Road subforum, the broad-church subforum, etc etc etc.

After all, if liberals, Anglo-Catholics, and the Evangelicals get their's, why can't alllllllllll the others: the high-churchers, the low-churchers, the broad-churchers...the Latitudarians, the Anglo-Papists, the Anglo-Patriarchists, the Open Evangelicals, the moderates, the conservatives?

You want one? Then all these must be added too. After all, to not have them is to suggest "they aren't important enough."

Hold the phone.

I thought anybody could add to the wiki, but that it would not be adopted as an official rule for the forum until the forum voted on it favorably. My impression was that everybody would be adding proposals to the wiki, then the wiki, in part or in total, could be voted upon in a poll thread on STR.

I got the impression that no one should be editing it unless it was a basic rule that would receive universal recognition anyway. All others would be brought into discussion and debate here and be voted upon later.

Longhair, would you mind making your wishes made a little more clear? :)

Wigglesworth
11th July 2007, 01:29 PM
Wigglesworth,

I just discovered that Lambeth 1920, resolution 27, does not recognize any Old Catholic denomination which holds Bishop Arnold Harris Matthew in it's Apostolic Succession.

I know the PNCC has +Vilatte in it's succession, but what about +Matthew? What about other Old Catholics here?

Bishop Hodur was the first bishop of the PNCC, and he was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the 1890's. Matthew, who had no connection to the PNCC, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the late 1800's around the time Hodur was consecrated, but there is no connection between Hodur and Matthew.

When I use the term "Old Catholic" it denotes a church with bishops in the Utrecht line of succession. I'm not aware of anyone going by the name "Old Catholic" who lacks the Utrecht line of succession.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

EvAng
11th July 2007, 01:33 PM
Have I edited the wiki with my suggestions? No. Did you? Yes!

Of course I did that is why it is there!! :doh:

Fish and Bread
11th July 2007, 01:35 PM
The top of the wiki contains some guidance from it's creator.
I thought it's creator was just one of us with no special powers or authority, right? So isn't it just an opinion from the guy who happened to find the wiki section first?

I am not saying he's wrong in his suggestions, just that I'm not sure they have binding force.

karen freeinchristman
11th July 2007, 05:28 PM
F+B came up with this POTENTIAL addition:

[Potential addition of: "We also welcome as full members of this forum any Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox who for whatever reason might decide to join us here, recognizing that our common liturgical heritage, traditions, artwork and iconography, three-fold ministries, and claims to Apostolic Succession provide for a unique bond between those groups and the other churches compromising STR." -FB]

I do not believe it to be a good idea. STR should be principly Anglican/Old Catholic. The suggestion rips away any Anglican/Old Catholic identity.I have to agree with PV here - I do not think we can welcome RC, EO, and OO's as full members of STR. As I said in one of those other threads in the main STR forum, it should be two distinctions: those who consider themselves to be Anglican/Old Catholic and those who do not (non-Christians and any other denomination).

longhair75
11th July 2007, 06:17 PM
Friend PaladinValer,
Longhair, would you mind making your wishes made a little more clear?
I made that suggestion at the top of the Wiki to appeal to everyone's good will and common courtesy to discuss changes before editing someone else's proposal. I would never dream of rewriting someone's entry without consultation.

Friend Fish and Bread,
I thought it's creator was just one of us with no special powers or authority, right? So isn't it just an opinion from the guy who happened to find the wiki section first?

I am not saying he's wrong in his suggestions, just that I'm not sure they have binding force. part of my job as moderator for STR is to act as an advocate for our forum to the Admin of CF. I started the Wiki, not out of any authority, but as part of my job to help STR get through the changes.

Wigglesworth
12th July 2007, 12:27 PM
Since I suggested it in another thread in STR, and nobody expressed an objection, I added the following revision of Pamela's sticky to the wiki.

Scripture, Tradition, Reason - Anglican/Old Catholic

Congregational Forum Standards

“Scripture, Tradition, Reason - Anglican/Old Catholic” is a congregational forum governed by the broader rules of Christian Forums. Please make sure you are familiar with the latest statement of those rules before you post in this forum.

Members and Non-Members

This is the congregational forum for members of Christian Forums who self-identify as "Anglican" or "Old Catholic." "Self-identify" means what you would call yourself, today, if someone asked for your denomination, and is a clear affirmation. If your normal answer is, "I consider myself XXX ... but I was confirmed in an Anglican church ..." or "I still go to an Old Catholic church but I've decided they're wrong and am converting to XXX..." - or if you never were Anglican or Old Catholic - then please limit yourself to questions and fellowship posts to avoid debating on any issue that may be controversial to Anglicans or Old Catholics.

It is the responsibility of any non-member posting in this forum to avoid contentious topics.

Diversity of Belief

The Anglican and Old Catholic churches include many different provinces and communions worldwide who express a range of perspectives on different doctrines. Despite this breadth of thought within our Churches, it is possible for them to coexist.

It is the expectation on this board that the divers groups will co-exist, and do so courteously, or at least with restraint from discourtesy.

What Anglicans Believe

Anglicans don't have dogma. Anglican doctrine is inferred from praxis. The norm for Anglican praxis is the Book of Common Prayer, or an alternative, as authorized for your Province or communion.

Anglicanism is generally tolerant of variant forms of worship. However, variants should not be promoted as being core Anglican norms. "Accepted by some Anglicans" is a true statement that should be used instead of "is the Anglican viewpoint" for matters not supported by the majority of authorized Prayer Books.
Evidence supporting a claim that some belief or practice is fundamentally Anglican should come from a Prayer book or alternative authorized by an Anglican Province or communion.

Approved Prayer Books include the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and also the 1928 or 1979, CW, BAS, A Prayer Book for Australia, and AAPB (and for historical discussion, ASB, 1552, 1549 and other superceded prayer books). At the same time, while one can have some certainty that the prayer book used in their province and communion represents a degree of mainstream practice for that province and communion, your prayer book is not definitive for other provinces and is not a hammer with which to beat on one another.

Notwithstanding the reliance on the Book of Common Prayer for norms, it is worth repeating that Anglicanism is generally tolerant of variant forms of worship. A judgement that something is "Not predominantly accepted by Anglicans" should never be used to support a claim, or read as a claim, that someone or something is "unAnglican". Anglicanism includes freedom to practice pieties and hold beliefs that are not completely shared (or even commonly shared) within the rest of the communion. Recognize that this is a freedom, not a burden to place upon others. Our freedom to embrace variant practices implicitly depends on others having the freedom to choose to eschew those practices with equal passion. It's not just a matter of "if you don't like it, don't do it". One person may have as valid a reason to discourage some pet piety as another has to promote it.

To summarize, core mainstream Anglican praxis is found in Anglican prayer books; Anglicans don't have dogma, so, Anglican "official positions" must be inferred from Anglican prayer books; a norm for one group should not be misrepresented as "the Anglican viewpoint;" and, something can be "Not usual for Anglicans" without being "unAnglican".

Finally, while ideas and ideals do not need to be hidden, the discussion of them does need to be curbed. Giving free reign to any form of sarcastic wit, vilification, florid overstatement, perjoration, condemnatory oration, arrogant absolutism - in short, flaming and baiting - is inappropriate. You can present your idea. You cannot beat people over the head with it or back them up against a wall with it.

You needn't restrict what you have to say, but you must restrain HOW you say it. {Wigglesworth, plagiarist}

karen freeinchristman
15th July 2007, 03:31 PM
I have to say, it's beginning to grow on me. :)

pmcleanj
18th July 2007, 12:24 PM
Could I persuade the moderator (please, please, please!!!) that a change of "who bare the Anglican" to who bear the Anglican" would not require a re-vote??? It's right where the reference is made to bearing the Old Catholic icon.

Wigglesworth
18th July 2007, 01:08 PM
The name tags used to denote who added text to the wiki could be deleted as well. Let's keep STR tidy.